New Biblical Archaeology

Not unlike hermeneutics which is being supplanted by the
infamous "new hermeneutics," biblical archaeology is being revamped with
a "new" biblical archaeology. In both cases, the old, tried, proven and
biblically defensible standards are being wholly undercut and discarded
— by "scholars" who demonstrate their agnosticism or worse at every juncture.

Strangely, many "biblical archaeologists" today are openly
enemies of the Bible. That being so, the term "biblical" should be dropped.
Further, the propositions of both "new hermeneutics" and "new biblical
archaeology" contradict the respective topics of hermeneutics and biblical
archaeology.

James K. Hoffmier, a professor at Wheaton College, summarizes
the perspective of new biblical archaeologists.

The result of their scholarly investigations
has been that virtually all that the Bible has to say about the early history
of Israel has been rejected . . . Gone are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph,
Moses, Joshua and now even David. The Egyptian sojourn and exodus stories,
along with Sinai wanderings and Joshua's military entry into Canaan, have
been reduced to retrojections or inventions by later Biblical writers.
(James K. Hoffmier, "Of Minimalists and Maximalists," Biblical Archaeology
Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, March/April 1995, p. 22.)

New biblical archaeologists do not believe that
the Bible is the inspired Word of God (at least not by the ordinary
definitions to which we subscribe). Therefore, they are predisposed
not to find correlation between archaeological discoveries and the
Bible. Of course, new biblical archaeologists accuse "old" biblical archaeologists
of being predisposed to find correlations between archaeological discoveries
and the Bible — even if they must forge those comparisons. God's Word does
not require fraudulently devised external evidences to defend it. However,
legitimate external evidences of the Bible's veracity — which may be uncovered
through biblical archaeology — deserve fair consideration.

John H. Morison, Professor of New Testament Studies and
Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School, author
and Lutheran minister, has a loathsome view of God's Word. In an article
in Biblical Archaeology Review, he: (1) shudders at the thought

. . . that the Hebrew Bible . . . can be understood
properly by both Jews and Christians only if it is acknowledged that its
ultimate meaning is seen as a prophecy for the fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
. . . that all Jews should be converted to Christianity. . . . there is
neither a historical nor a theological justification for such claims. (John
H. Morison, "Historic Mistakes Haunt the Relationship of Christianity and
Judaism," Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, March/April
1995, p. 26.)

(2) Morison quotes a fellow Harvard colleague and proceeds
to defend the statement: "Both the canon of the New Testament and the Mishnah
are a tragic historical mistake." (Ibid.) He adds:

It is a simple historical fact that Jesus was
an Israelite from Galilee, and that he understood himself to be nothing
else but a prophet in Israel and for Israel — a venerable tradition, and
he was not the first of these prophets of Israel who was rejected and persecuted
— though he was tried and executed by the Romans, not by the Jewish authorities.
(Ibid.)

(3) According to Morison, Christianity and modern Judaism
resulted from an unauthorized disruption in Judaism. A new religion (Christianity)
was never intended by God or the apostles. "The Pharisee Paul," though
he did not envision a new religious group, through his teaching inadvertently
drove a wedge between Jews and Jewish-Gentile groups — by which "the heirs
of the Pharisaic tradition" caused two distinct groups to form: Jews and
Christians. (Ibid., pp. 26-27.)

Even the editor of the magazine Biblical Archaeology
Review is critical of "belief in the inerrancy of the Bible." (Hershel
Shanks, "A Short History of BAR," Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol.
21, No. 2, March/April 1995, p. 38.) Four sentences within two paragraphs
by another renown archaeologist show the link between new archaeology and
new hermeneutics — which produces liberal theology.

I think that it is time for us to stop fooling
the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our
Bible committee got closer to it than their committee did. . . . Must we
continue to pretend that only our group is right denominationally and others
are not right, and it is just too bad about others? . . . The Hebrew text
is still in the process of standardization, but I wonder if it would not
be proper for there to be an effort afoot to provide our people with the
differences where they exist and let them see that there have been differences
all along. I have been told by some that that would just destroy the Bible
because lay folk still want to think of the Bible as somehow "inerrant."
(James A. Sanders, "Understanding the Development of the Biblical Text,"
The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years, pp. 70-71.)

Funny, if it were not so tragic, biblical archaeology has
become the very thing that when it initially came forth it was intended
to counteract. Biblical archaeology sprang from Palestinian archaeology
as a calculated effort to offset German "higher criticism" of the Bible.

Archaeologists working in Palestine between the
end of the 19th century and the First World War are generally regarded
as the "Founding Fathers" of Biblical archaeology. . . . The "Golden Age"
of Palestinian archaeology — the period between the two World Wars — was
dominated by American-style "Biblical archaeology" as championed by William
Foxwell Albright and his disciples. (Bunimovitz, pp. 60-61.)

J.W. McGarvey was one valiant opponent of higher criticism.
His book, Lands of the Bible, is an enduring testimony of his appeal to
external evidence with which to confirm the Bible against liberal German
theology.

However, a new generation of scholars in "the 1960s
and early 1970s" arose which dubbed themselves new biblical archaeologists.
They dismissed the archaeological work of their predecessors as "simplistic"
or otherwise faulty. Former biblical archaeologists were ridiculed for
engaging in circular reasoning for their acceptance of ". . . both
archaeology and the Bible as essentially trustworthy sources of historical
information." (Ibid., pp. 59, 62.)

Archaeologists are accompanied in the digs by "geologists,
paleobotanists, zoologists, anthropologists, soil scientists, climatologists,
etc." (Ibid., p. 65.) and apparently evolutionists (". . . we found
evidence of early man's settlement in the Arabian Peninsula nearly a million
years ago." (Hamid Abu Duruk, "Archaeology Thriving in Saudi Arabia," Biblical
Archaeology Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, March/April 1995, p. 73.)) Together,
these specialists collaborate to render interpretations regarding
biblical archaeology. These interpretations are naturally subject to whatever
presuppositions that the archaeologists may have. Consequently, new biblical
archaeologists are promoters of humanistic depiction of man's past, present
and future. They tend to destroy the Bible as God's Word and encourage
an ecumenical, liberal theology. Personally, were I to adopt what new biblical
archaeologists have to offer, I would not be anything religiously. I would
be a confirmed atheist.

Fortunately, though in the minority, there are still old
biblical archaeologists. They still do revere God's Word and are willing
to make correlation between archaeology and the Bible where those comparisons
legitimately exist. Happily, there are numerous archaeological proofs that
serve as external evidence to the truthfulness of the Bible. Finally and
remarkably, no archaeological discoveries have been unearthed which contradict
the Bible.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false
prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it
were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matthew 24:24).